tv [untitled] January 15, 2012 2:01am-2:31am PST
supervisor cohen, present. supervisor elsbernd, present. supervisor farrell, a present. supervisor kim, present. supervisor mar, present. supervisor olague, present. welcome to the board. supervisor wiener, president. mr. president, all members are present. president chiu: i want to welcome our newest supervisor colleague. why don't we say the pledge of allegiance? "i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." president chiu: you should have colleagues of our board meeting minutes.
could i have a motion to approve? motion by supervisor farrell, seconded by supervisor kim. those minutes are approved. are there any communications? >> i have one. on december 19, 2011, the mayor submitted his feet out of an ordinance on march -- amending the park code. the board this is jurisdiction on january 18. the air -- item has been agenda isized as item 11. first item of business as the formal policy discussion between the mayor and members of the board. the mayor may address the board initially for five minutes. the president will recognize supervisors from districts 1, 3, 7, 9, and 11 who will present their questions and discussion shall not exceed five minutes per supervisor. public comment will take place during general public comment. president chiu: thank you.
welcome back, mr. mayor. we will see if you have anything he would like to say to the board before starting with questions. >> happy new year to members of the board and public. thank you. i am looking forward to working with each and every one of the and looking up -- forward to rolling up our sleeves and getting things done. i also want to thank the members of the board before attending the inaugural events this package -- past weekend. it was good to see there. i want to restate and reiterate our cooperation for years to come to keep moving our cities' board. you might have heard in my speech that i mentioned question time. on sunday i said it might not be the most exciting part our day but as long as we're working together on substantive matters for the city, i am happy and we're all going to be happy. one thing before we start this month question and answer session. i want to take a moment and make a special welcome on my behalf
to the supervisor, christine delontola. she has a record of fighting to improve the lives of countless san franciscans. here experience as an advocate for low-income tenants and persons with disabilities as well as before the lgbtq youth will do -- serve as well. thank you for answering the call to service and stepping up for air district and all the people of san francisco. i know we have important policy items before us. without delay, let's go to work. president chiu: the first question of the day will be asked from our colleague from district 1, supervisor mar. >> many corridors are struggling with vacant storefronts as well as the loss
of long standing businesses. we're working with the office of economic and workforce development to save the balboa theater from going under. the balboa theater is an important anchor of business and one of the few remaining independent theaters. small businesses are the biggest job producers in our city. i believe helping them stay afloat should be one of our highest priorities. can you articulate specific plans or programs that you're a ministration intends to implement in the coming year that will help our struggling small businesses? >> thank you for that question. i know you paid consistent attention to community theaters in your district. small businesses including theaters like the balboa are the backbone of our economy. i have been explicit in line jobs plan about the intention to establish and expand programs that are specifically aimed at assisting small businesses. one example is the invest in
neighborhoods initiative which will have a direct, meaningful -- direct meaningful resources to the neighborhoods and districts that need them the most. i have spoken about these initiatives here and i doubt this will be the last time. another example is the jobs squad which will enable city staff to get out of city hall and work full-time in the city's neighborhood districts, offering assistance and advice to small businesses to cut through red tape and start creating jobs. i will be announcing the specific details within the next several weeks and i and my proposed budget later this year. in the case of the balboa theater, we have been able to take advantage of the san francisco shines program to make a grant. the theater for assaad is in the process of being renewed. we are hopeful that this upgrade
will enable businesses to stay afloat. thus preserving these crucial neighborhood jobs. the sf shines program is one of several financing tools that the city offers to neighborhood businesses. we also have the small business revolving loan funds and the section 108 loan program for larger projects. the sf shines and roblin loans fund are out of money and need to be recapitalized. in the coming weeks, i will propose an expansion of these financing tools to increase our capacity to launch and strengthen small businesses in neighborhoods around the city. i look forward to your partnership on this and other programs for small businesses. thank you. >president chiu: i will ask the next question which has to do with affordable housing.
in light of the recent supreme court decision, what is your vision for creating such housing in san francisco? will you support the housing bond or some other dedicated source of revenue? will you streamline and consolidate the agencies involved including the mayor's office on housing, the housing authority, along with the functions of from the soon to be dismantled redevelopment agency? what direction should we take inclusionary housing? >> this has been a a question on the forefront of my mind and i've been trying to answer since the moment we got the bad news from the california state supreme court. please forgive me in advance if i take more than five minutes. this is a very complex issue. on december 29, 2011, the court issued a ruling that will dissolve all local redevelopment agency's effective february 1. it will not allow the city to a
lack continue -- to continue its agency by making additional payments. the decision is final. under assembly bill 26 on february 1, the city will automatically assume most of the agency's assets and surviving enforceable obligations. unless the city were to elect to opt out, which we do not intend to do. rather, from -- by february one, the city must affirmatively opt in to accept the transfer of the agency's affordable housing assets and responsibilities which we do intend to do. as the city prepares for the agency's imminent dissolution, the following are my immediate policy and action priorities. these priorities will guide my administration's actions as we prepare for the dissolution of the san francisco redevelopment agency. as we plan for creating a post- the solution successor agency,
we must continue moving forward without delay on approve projects. mission bay north and south, the hunters point shipyard and candlestick point projects, and transbay. we have existing contractual obligations and attend -- intend to use tax increments for infrastructure and affordable housing. we must also maximize state and federal matching dollars. moving forward, we must prioritize redevelopment agency projects and programs receiving state and federal matching dollars that maximize the leveraging of our local investment. we will also keep working toward our affordable housing goals. the redevelopment agency has been the single largest source of affordable and workforce housing for san francisco. i am committed to adopting and moving for the existing affordable housing goals and commitment of the agency by transferring these functions and assets to the mayor's office of
housing and seeking to preserve the full balance in the agency's low and moderate housing and come fund for that purpose. to continue this critical work, we're going to need new tools to replace redevelopment. we are committed to working with our partners across the state to create the tool. i am committed to a new local toole, the finance -- to finance affordable housing. as we announced my administration will establish to -- a housing trust fund to insure we have a local, a permanent source of funding for affordable housing. last but not least, we will continue to promote workforce development and neighborhood revitalization. the redevelopment agency played a critical role in supporting work force and local hire programs as well as revitalizing communities on a neighborhood scale. i am committed to finding a way for the city to pursue a comparable workforce development and local hire programs, small business
support, corridor facade improvement, public rail improvements and similar activities. today, i will be introducing a resolution to help move these goals for. i want to thank supervisor malia cohen for agreeing to be the sponsor of this resolution. i want to thank supervisors kim and olague for agreeing to co- sponsor the resolution. we can ensure these critical functions continue. to ensure expeditious and professional level of oversight for the ongoing redevelopment successor duties of the city, i will also forward to you the nominations of life for candidates to the oversight board. which the state requires us to form for the purpose of overseeing the successor agency and for your confirmation. these nominees consist of john ram of planning, olson lee,
nadia sessa, and bob muscat. i have been informed that chancellor griffin from the city college of san francisco intends to ford linda -- forward linda mcknight. superintendent carlos garcia will be appointing nancy waymeck. finally, the last appointing authority will be making an appointment soon. president chiu: our next question will be asked by our colleague from district 7, supervisor elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. following up on this question of redevelopment, one of the specific projects, transbay terminal. not only is it facing the loss
of the redevelopment agency but it does not take your rocket scientist to see that the future of high-speed rail is in serious doubt. certainly in 2012, washington, d.c., the odds that there will be new money with the split government is slim to none. we're seeing the democratic legislature is questioning appropriate in the bond funds. quite simply, breaking down my question, redevelopment. what is plan b with transbay terminal? if the high-speed rail goes away, we do? >> thank you for that question, supervisor elsbernd. let me start off by saying i am committed to seeing full implementation of high-speed rail. which includes having a northern terminus at the transbay center transit center. as you indicated, the high speed rail authority released a business plan and they asked cities to comment. in a matter of days, san francisco will submit technical comments with the key goal of
seeing that transbay is the end point of the new rail system. i sent a letter to the ceo of the authority laying out some clear points. let me share some of those key principles i laid out. i want to express our unwavering support for the notion of high- speed rail. it is the future of transportation in the state. we have to acknowledge as you mentioned in your question, a supervisor, cost estimates to build and operate the system are much higher now than they were in several years ago. i point out that california will need to spend between $100 billion and $200 billion in decades to come to expand infrastructure. california's population is growing. those people need to move up and down the state. the question is, do we make transportation infrastructure investments on bigger, wider highways and airport runways? i would say no. at -- this perpetuates a car-
dependent culture. we could put our investments in smarter, more sustainable transit systems like high-speed rail and regional transit connections. and want to make it crystal clear that the voters approved proposition 1a under the assumption the rail system would be a basin linking downtown san francisco with downtown los angeles. we can only accomplish this vision is a high-speed rail terminates at the transbay center, which is in the heart of our high-growth, high concentration job center. for me, this is not negotiable. working with the high speed rail authority, the transbay joint powers authority, and caltrain will all need to figure out how to pay for the downtown extension. this can come through a combination of new revenues, associated with the project and cost savings through the alignment. however we do it, we must make
sure that a high-speed rail ends at transbay. modernizing the system is a good first step. incremental progress towards making this vision a reality. once completed, the transbay transit center will be a shining centerpiece in the city skyline crown. it will anchor much of the progress being made in south of market and i am committed to seeing it through. thank you. president chiu: our next question, our colleague from district 9. supervisor avalos: thank yo cam. i appreciate the guiding principles your office created last year with respect to the 2011-2012 budget procter --
process. my question is, will you and your office abide by the principles that you articulated in the prior fiscal year in terms of your decisions as you try to close this projected budget deficit of $262 million? would you applied to the principles for the coming fiscal year, and if you would, can you explain how you would put those principles into practice as we're going forward with a budget this year? >> thank you for that question. last year we started a new process of engagement with our community based partners from across the city. last spring, i worked with a nonprofit leadership from across the city to review the budget proposals of the department of public health and human services and the department of children, youth, and families. during our work together, the cbo's drafted principles the
city should keep in mind when facing budget deficits and making difficult decisions on how we allocate our general fund. eight principles that recommended include, among others, prioritizing services that make -- meet the most basic human needs including housing, food, emergency response, access to health care, and income support. prioritizing services for the most vulnerable, and maximizing and minimizing reductions to services that leverage outside funds. the budget principles of our cdo partners drafted last year served as an important sporting. -- starting point. i agree and will do my best to abide by them moving forward. the city -- we can always make improvements in the work that we do. that is why starting this past fall, my staff and i have worked
with the stakeholders to talk about what worked well last year during the last process and what we can improve on. two important themes emerged and i would like to share those with you today. first was about these budget principles and how we can improve. currently, the human services agency and other nonprofit partners have been exploring revisions from last year to strengthen the principles and i look forward to working with my c.b. zero partners on reviewing and refining the principles moving forward. the second theme is we need to start the process early so our partners know early what department proposals look like. i have instructed departments to have their own specific cbo in disman strategies. this effort is underway with meetings happening at public health, human services, and the office of economic and workforce
development. we need more transparency by departments early on so we can all tackle the difficult budget situation together. thank you for bringing up this important question, supervisor campos and i look forward to working with you in engaging the partners, the leadership, and all san francisco residents regarding our important budgetary decisions. president chiu: our final question will be asked by our colleague from district 11, supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: thank you and congratulations on your inauguration. my question regarding the l line down to city bart. you have to make several transfers to get downtown. the idea of going down to taking the 14 l to downtown city bar eliminates time and that was
something that was advocated in something i have been talking about for a long time. i am happy to see that will be implemented soon. one of the missing pieces in that is the assurance that residents who go to daly city park and pay the fare the way any president transferring into the board system would pay the fare within san francisco and i like to see what commitment we could make to sure we could make -- move forward with that agreement with bart and what your administration is doing to see that happen. >> thank you for that question. i am sure you are concerned about ensuring equal access to quality public transportation for our residents. i have made providing quality access to public transit for all one of my top priorities. what you have been asking for is already in the works, supervisor. san mateo county is not part of
the bar special tax district. premium is placed on trips originating and terminating within those boundaries, including daily city. the 1-way fare from daly city to civic center bart station is $2.95. the same trip originating at balboa park is $1.75. recognizing this fare structure places an unfair burden on san francisco residents residing in the southern part of the city where the daly city bar connection is the most efficient, bart and mta have been -- had a fair agreement. this benefit provides free roundtrip travel to and from the daly city bart station on too many lines. the 28, 19th avenue, and the 54 which connect to the bart station a $4 value. bart reimburses the san francisco mta 50% of the cost of
this transfer. the same benefit will be offered to customers on the 14 l mission line as soon as the service began. this is expected to be available on clipper and on a paper to part transfer ticket at first and transition solely to the clipper card. sfmta is participating in a working group in conjunction with bart, the transportation authority, daly city, santrans and san francisco university to include daly city as well as other fare options. the current agreement allows unlimited travel on or within san francisco and on all muni services with a single fair instrument. the san francisco mta reimburses part about $1.20 for each trip taken under this agreement currently.
this reimbursement rate is retroactively to the fiscal year 2011. in the new fast pass agreement which will go before the board of supervisors for approval in the near future, along with the bird feeder agreement. the fair study will look at the writer ship and financial impacts which will be included in the study already under way to look at the overall capacity at the daly city bart station. recommendations are expected in late summer, in the early fall of 2012. i look forward to potentially riding with you in the 14 l. president chiu: thank you. madame clerk, the consent agenda. >> an item can be removed and
considered separately. >president chiu: would any of you like to sever these items? supervisor elsbernd: ten. >> supervisor wiener. aye, supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye, supervisor chu, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. president chiu: approve. item 10. >> approving to the market and
octavia at committee advisory committee. supervisor elsbernd: i would like to divide the question and approve all the names except for mr. cohen, separate him out. i would like to refer that seat back to committee. i would like to advise the question. -- divide the question. president chiu: is their motion to that effect? i am sorry, you do not need a motion. why don't we take the first part of that question first? can we approve the remaining appointments for item 10 without objection? the motion is approved. and vis-a-vis mr. cohen? supervisor elsbernd: thank you for accepting my request to appoint someone else, i was not
able to attend. i was able to review the hearing and during this applicant's presentation there was one thing that was said that was concerning. the seat to which he has been appointed, qualification say the applicant must be low-income. in his testimony he said he is not low income. if we're going to follow the legislation as it was drafted and insure that everyone is represented, most importantly, those of low income qualification are represented, we should fully understand why this individual was appointed and if not him, if we have better applicants. not saying no to him today but that question needs to be further discussed since it was brought up by a public credit should be further elaborated in public. i asked the sea be referred back to committee. president chiu: supervisor has made a motion. is there a second? can we do that without objection? objection? roll-call vote.